Logical Reasoning

PT117 · S4 · Q19 Political scientist: All governments worthy

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Political scientist: All governments worthy of respect allow their citizens to dissent from governmental policies.

Argument Structure

Any government worthy of WR → PC respect permits criticism

No govt worthy of respect protects minorities WR → PM ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ Any government that PM → PC protects minorities permits criticism

Evaluation / Goal

Both premises and the conclusion are conditionals. Thus, we would lean towards diagramming this argument, which is why the argument breakdown did whatever finessing was needed to find the repeating symbols (permits criticism, worthy of respect, protects minorities) so we could look at the conditional logic.

In even more generic form, the argument goes Premise 1: A → B Premise 2: A → C Conclusion: C → B

It wouldn't matter whether the conclusion is B → C or C → B, just that the conclusion creates a conditional between the right sides (outcomes) of the two conditionals in the premises.

Prioritizing answers? Get rid of anything that doesn't have three conditionals. Make sure the two premise conditionals have the same trigger.

19.

The flawed pattern of reasoning in which one of the following most closely parallels that in the political scientist's argument?

  1. Politicians are admirable if they

    Bad Conclusion Match Bad Evidence Match

    There are two conditional premises, but they don't have the same trigger. They have matching outcomes. Premise 1: Put their interests 2nd ? admirable Premise 2: Ignore their voters ? admirable Also, the conclusion isn't conditional

    3% picked this

  2. Correct

    All jazz musicians are capable

    Why this is right

    The two premises have the same trigger. Premise 1: Jazz musician ? can improvise Premise 2: Jazz musician ? can read music The conclusion creates a conditional from those two outcomes. Conclusion: can read music ? can improvise

    Skill tested: Parallel Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    70% picked this

  3. Ecosystems with cool, dry climates

    Bad Evidence Match

    The two conditionals chain together, but we wanted two conditionals with the same trigger. No reason to keep reading beyond that first mismatch. Premise 1: Cool ? populated and dry with large mammals Premise 2: populate with ? abundant large mammals plants

    21% picked this

  4. Some intellectuals are not socially

    Bad Evidence Match

    The first premise is a "Some" statement, so we could stop reading there. We wanted two conditional premises.

    5% picked this

  5. First-person narratives reveal the thoughts

    Bad Evidence Match

    The second premise is a "Some" statement, so we could stop reading there. We wanted two conditional premises.

    2% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free